Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dimi95]

Let me try to understand this. You are saying that (1) evolution is true. (2) prayer to Mary as intercessor is ok. Do I have this right about your present beliefs?

Friend , i am asking you nicely to not do this interpretation about my belief.
Just ask me and i will answer you.
In my prayer to God , Marry can be the intercesor.

intercessor is someone who prays, petitions, or begs God in favor of another person.

Read my previous answer , please!

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is what I understand now at this point. She is considered an "intercessor." I can look up more about it. The question really is one now of what is evidence in reference to those who accept the scientific definition of evolution as well as professing belief in God.

You would have to ask those that hold that belief. There is no one dogma so what good would it do you to get one man's explanation? It is not the "right" explanation, it is only theirs. It works for them and that is all that matters.

To me it makes more sense to adjust one's beliefs according to reality instead of claiming that God is a liar, but you can do whatever you want.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The biggest and worst supported and destructive assumption is that there is no God. Science is being bought and sold on this basis for use as a weapon against the less fit; middle class Americans.

I disagree and this makes no sense to say given there is no evidence to come to this claim.

 

[blü 2]

Magic? How should i explain something that i don't belive in the first place?
Just because you think God itself is magic that is not my problem.

The bible attributes magic to God ─ you haven't addressed the question of how God brought light into being, for instance. Or by what procedure God imposed a famine, then in return for a number of human sacrifices, lifted it, 2 Samuel 21. The NT has a few recipes for working magic eg James 5:15 (although it only works at the same rate as chance).

First , when we take this from agnostic point of view and consider science as mutual ground we can both agree that we don't know if God/s exist or not.

Not so. I'm an igtheist, and (apparently unlike you) not only do I have no idea what real entity, one found in the world external to the self, is intended to be denoted by the word "God", but no one else appears to know either. To the best of my understanding, the only way God is known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain.

And it's clear that the bible attributes a great deal of magic to God and through him, to some of [his] earthly agents ─ magic being the ability to alter reality independently of the rules of reality.

And as i see and it is very clear in your answer , from don't know you go directly to magic and tricks like that.

Not quite. As you can see, I think God is an idea, an example from a class of similar ideas, such as other gods, goddesses, spirits, angels, devils, imps, leprechauns, wizards, witches, all the way down the roster to souls and ghosts.

To answer your question i don't know much about the narrative in Genesis except that i accept it in some symbolic way.
I prefer to rely myself on what science has proven as fact regarding that.

Then we can each look up the present best explanation for the coming into being of photons, and treat the miracle stories in the bible as folktale and parable.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please respect the topic of the discussion and the other people speaking here.

You can tag me elsewere and we can discuss about what you want about God.

This is part of the discussion. Because some believe the evaluation of the evidence is pro evolution without doubt while others do not. So evidence or the evaluation of what is considered evidence in various aspects of cognition is a valid consideration.

 

[YoursTrue]

You would have to ask those that hold that belief. There is no one dogma so what good would it do you to get one man's explanation? It is not the "right" explanation, it is only theirs. It works for them and that is all that matters.

To me it makes more sense to adjust one's beliefs according to reality instead of claiming that God is a liar, but you can do whatever you want.

Well, we shall see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree and this makes no sense to say given there is no evidence to come to this claim.

I have seen this error from other Christian fundamentalists. They seem to conflate scientists assuming that there is a natural explanation to observed events to one that allows no God at all. I think that it may be because they assume that their own personal version of God is the only possible one so when one refutes their personal version of God they see that as a refutation of every possible God, since they had the only right one of course.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, we shall see.

Or you might not. If I am right you will never know it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Friend , i am asking you nicely to not do this interpretation about my belief.
Just ask me and i will answer you.
In my prayer to God , Marry can be the intercesor.

intercessor is someone who prays, petitions, or begs God in favor of another person.

Read my previous answer , please!

Let's do this again, please, so I have your proper viewpoint. Thank you in advance.
So the question is really about evidence -- the validity and truthfulness of evidence -- thus, are you saying that you have evidence that Mary can be an intercessor between God and man, or rather is it just belief and no supporting evidence to back up the idea?

 

[YoursTrue]

Or you might not. If I am right you will never know it.

Can't say I disagree. While I am alive I have hope. When I'm dead (not alive) I now hope and believe I will know nothing. Unless of course it's a fabulous happy existence in another realm of existence which I hope anyway will not happen. Because -- ok later maybe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do not reject science.

By all accounts, I disagree. You seem to reject it in favor of unevidenced things that you believe are facts. You've never demonstrated any experiments, evidence or sensible reasons why you believe these things you do.

I reject the product being bought and sold that is labeled "Science".

Of course. I suspect it is largely due to the fact that science leads to a rejection of all that you believe in your personal version of science that seems entirely based on things you believe without evidence. I maintain that you have created your own personal religion based on ignorance of science and perhaps on an interest in science that has gone awry.

I also reject any "science" not founded in experiment.

For no reason other than you seem to have deified experiment out of a misunderstanding of how data is generated. Probably just your entire misunderstanding of science as a whole.

There are not an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps.

Who cares. I don't. It has nothing to do with the discussion and is just another of many mantras you seem to change in lieu of evidence and valid argument.

There may not even be one pyramid built with one ramp.

Don't know. Don't care. Probably not correct either.

I reject as "theory" any conjecture founded on a belief in "survival of the fittest" and that gradual change is the only way to interpret the "fossil record".

Straw man arguments should be rejected.

I reject the pervasive belief in science

As opposed to what seems like a personal belief that the stuff you claim is magically now fact?

Just because someone is educated in science, studies the natural world and recognizes empty claims does not make them a believer so that you can announce to the world your rejection of them in order to get your personal beliefs through the door unquestioned.

and I reject the common notion that science is based on genius.

There is no common notion like that I'm aware of. You haven't presented anything to show it exists or is common. I predict you won't either.

I reject the common belief that science is determined by consensus

Another straw man. Science isn't determined by consensus. That a consensus exists and that it is contrary to your belief doesn't make it wrong and doesn't mean it determining science.

and that individuals are irrelevant.

Some are. Some make themselves irrelevant in the some contexts.

But evolution is not about changes in individuals. It is about changes in populations. Trying to make individuals relevant is meaningless in that context.

I reject the way science is taught in this country.

Of course you do. It isn't taught to believe the spewing from some random person on the internet making empty claims and then running away when challenged. Science is designed to ferret that sort of nonsense out.

All these things are wrong and they are all destructive to the individual and the commonweal.

Well that is your opinion that seems based more on your personal feelings and very, very, very much less on any evidence. Science has been pretty useful to the commonweal. It is the commonweal that seems to be at odds and detrimental to science. Some of them say the most baseless things and try to get it past scrutiny.

Even if Darwin is right

So far, 150 years later, he mostly still is.

it would still be wrong to teach or believe Evolution as "settled science" there is now and never will be such a thing as "settled science" and such a belief can be used as an epitaph for the human species.

One thing we seem to agree on, but you say so much, statistically it was bound to happen.

We came, we believed, we all died.

Whatever.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course I can't. No more than you can prove there was no Creator.

Why would you say that? He is a theist. You do realize that it isn't just atheists that understand science that reject your empty claims. Us theists that understand it, also reject them.

Belief is destructive.

And yet, belief in your own convoluted and often erroneous version of science seems to form the entire basis of your presence here.

It's not as bad when beliefs are constructed by reason and experiment

Those would be based on evidence and not untestable beliefs based on faith. You know that right?

but when it is constructed of guesses, assumptions, and old wives tales they are far more likely to destroy than create.

I've been telling you this for years. Everyone that challenges your seemingly belief-based empty claims has.

Certainty in science springs from confusion where ironically religion sprang from ancient science.

Nonsense. None of this has been established as fact. I see this as part of your personal belief system.

Modern science is a powerful tool but where used improperly it can destroy.

Sure. Anything can be used to destroy if you really want to. What is this supposed to tell us. That people that disagree with you using knowledge, reason and evidence are destroyers?

You are using it improperly. Life is individual and so, too, is science.

This just looks like meandering to useful end.

I've often taken anthropology to task but I do respect many anthropologists. Anthropologists rely on Egyptology for too many base lines.

I have no reason to conclude you have any expertise to challenge anthropologists or Egyptologists.

I'm not either.

Clearly, I agree.

However my thinking on the subject has evolved remarkably since I was very little.

Changed gradually over time?

Some of my positions lacked labels.

I think they do fall into labeled categories.

Well, I shouldn't say "evolved" because like everything they changed suddenly many many times.

In other words, they evolved gradually over time. Though, I don't really think they have changed. You just seem to have found more internet sites to announce them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Absolutely and positively not in any way shape or form.

I believe in evidence and that the job of every individual is to assemble this evidence in meaningful patterns that make accurate predictions and create fewer anomalies. Darwin assembled the evidence incorrectly because common sense doesn't apply to how and why species change. Well, more accurately common sense applies to everything but it is ALWAYS dependent on proper beliefs and models. All of our beliefs are wrong.

Yes, species change as is apparent from the "fossil record" but just because gradual change and "survival of the fittest" are common sense doesn't mean they explain the evidence. The way homo omninisciencis thinks is not in any way natural. Naturally all individuals model reality itself in the brain but we must learn abstract language so we can learn anything at all so we must model what we believe. These models ideally are tied to experiment but in the real world they are tied more closely to extrapolations that might best be called "paradigms". Every bit of the Theory of Evolution tied to experiment is probably mostly spot on but little of the theory is tied to experiment. It is instead tied to interpolations and extrapolations of what we believe.

Species adapt suddenly.
Species undergo mutation suddenly.
Speciation occurs suddenly at bottlenecks caused by behavior of individuals. The behavior is a result of learning, experience, consciousness, and genetics.

Evolution big E or little e simply does not exist. It is interpretation of evidence led astray by faulty premises.


Frankly, you seem to understand better than most.

I don't expect you will respond to anything I've posted. I suspect that if you do at all, it won't amount to much. I'm just posting this so that others can gain a perspective on what I see is a belief system with revealed truths delivered as facts. Facts with no explanation, evidence or reason to be considered as fact.

I often find it amusing that your posts follow patterns that you label others as having. You claim others see themselves as omniscient, but those others recognize the contingent nature of science. They recognize evidence. They seem to understand science. Some of them are scientists or were if they are retired. They do not rely on semantics. They listen to what others are saying. They don't pretend to be experts and then spend post after post showing they are not. They don't deliver their claims as if they are revealed truth and run from requests for evidence, explanation or demonstration.

I have come to the conclusion not to expect much in response from you except more of the same. You don't really give your audience any credit for intelligence, knowledge or a need for something more substantial than what you believe is a truth without evidence.

I'm not sure what the underlying problem is, but I've long had my suspicions. Something outside the scope of this and I think likely an issue for another with degrees in a different field of science to deal with. But I do think it is worthwhile to inform the unsuspecting of what is and what isn't science and who may or may not have much to really say about it despite the patina of expertise they may want to project.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have seen this error from other Christian fundamentalists. They seem to conflate scientists assuming that there is a natural explanation to observed events to one that allows no God at all. I think that it may be because they assume that their own personal version of God is the only possible one so when one refutes their personal version of God they see that as a refutation of every possible God, since they had the only right one of course.

I think you are spot on correct. I think a lot of the behavior towards science and supporters of science that is evident in these discussions comes from that very position of absolutism. They know absolutely, so no need to behave, learn, or offer rational objection.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think you are spot on correct. I think a lot of the behavior towards science and supporters of science that is evident in these discussions comes from that very position of absolutism. They know absolutely, so no need to behave, learn, or offer rational objection.

Or even learn what a rational objection might be.

 

[Dimi95]

The bible attributes magic to God ─ you haven't addressed the question of how God brought light into being, for instance.

Your understanding of the Bible atributes magic to God - two different things.

To me the Bible is written by man who knew not so much about certain things as we know now.

Or by what procedure God imposed a famine, then in return for a number of human sacrifices, lifted it, 2 Samuel 21. The NT has a few recipes for working magic eg James 5:15 (although it only works at the same rate as chance).

First The gap between 2 Samuel and James is 600 years.
Pretty strange you mentioned that.

If you read 2 Samuel 21:1-14 you will understand that what you wrote is bull****.

Not so. I'm an igtheist, and (apparently unlike you) not only do I have no idea what real entity, one found in reality (the world external to the self), is intended to be denoted by the word "God", but no one else appears to know either. To the best of my understanding, the only way God is known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain.

I apologise , i didn't know that you were igtheist.

Your second part is biased.We still don't know what is behind the Big-Bang.

And it's clear that the bible attributes a great deal of magic to God and through him, to some of [his] earthly agents ─ magic being the ability to alter reality independently of the rules of reality.

So you don't belive that miracles happen?
This is also the answer to James
5:15

Not quite. As you can see, I think God is an idea, an example from a class of similar ideas, such as other gods, goddesses, spirits, angels, devils, imps, leprechauns, wizards, witches, all the way down the roster to souls and ghosts.

Yes i have noticed that , you stick to certain answering regardless of the writer on the other side.

Then we can each look up the present best explanation for the coming into being of photons, and treat the miracle stories in the bible as folktale and parable.

But this is the thing , me and you we can speak science and agree on many , many things.
The only thing that we disagree here is that Science is the domain of everything.

Many of the things that you know now are false.Not just you , but also scholars.
We have many new evidence and we have found a way to deal with papyrus and date it better.
But this requires a lot of time and work.

 

[Dimi95]

Let's do this again, please, so I have your proper viewpoint. Thank you in advance.
So the question is really about evidence -- the validity and truthfulness of evidence -- thus, are you saying that you have evidence that Mary can be an intercessor between God and man, or rather is it just belief and no supporting evidence to back up the idea?

You can ask many Christians worldwide what kind of change did certain prayers bring to their life.

Bringing that as evidence is a little bit unfair.

When you pray , you don't need evidence , you need help!

 

[Dimi95]

This is part of the discussion. Because some believe the evaluation of the evidence is pro evolution without doubt while others do not. So evidence or the evaluation of what is considered evidence in various aspects of cognition is a valid consideration.

But you think they are synchronized in some strange way.
They are not.
You need to realize what is their use and to what they serve.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes , some may confuse critic with insult.

Some do. It seems to be the case here where the recognition of the use of logical fallacies is seen as an insult. In fact, it appears that no matter how it is delivered, the recognition of any flaw in an argument is seen as insult. It is to the point where I find the behavior insulting.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I thought, why not check this out. It does not appear to be simultaneous. Agriculture in the Old World appears to have begun about 10,000 years before in the New World with only local signs of small scale farming. Hmm, just like as if it were a gradual process that changed with time. That sounds oddly familiar. It was around 10 to 11 thousand years ago that it became a major way of life in the fertile crescent. That was roughly when it was just beginning in the New World:

History of agriculture - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You would think that someone making claims about agriculture as if those claims were fact, would have at least looked at Wikipedia to learn some actual facts.

I'm still not sure how biological evolution would have had a negative impact or any impact on the development of agriculture as seems to have been the claim. Perhaps this was just a very bad way to say that breeding of plants and animals models natural evolution. But I sort of doubt that. Seems to be the implication of accepting evolution would preclude recognizing the gradual nature of the origin of agriculture or falsify it. Somehow. It is difficult to know from what @cladking posts exactly what he thinks is valid fact and what is just seemingly made up and offered as fact.